So it’s only a good discussion if you say it is?
Since when does someone with as few posts/constructive contributions as you do get appointed to such a lofty position?
How about you get off your ass, hit the weights, eat right, and quit trying to make everything a brain exercise.
Sometimes it really is just that simple, and folks like you think it needs to be talked about.
Moron.
[quote]phox wrote:
What’s with your hard-on for “reason” and “critical thinking”?
[/quote]
This is a bodybuilding think tank, if good critical discussion is not it’s purpose, then what is the forums purpose?[quote]
If you’re looking for that type of thing, you should visit a philosophy forum.
[/quote]
My interest is discussion training, the place would be here, no?[quote]
Do you think people care if you think they use reason or critical thinking?
[/quote]
Nearly no one would care, but if one isn’t willing to intelligently discuss ideas, then I ask again, why do they post?[quote]
Maybe they’d rather take a shit than read through your posts and agree with you.
[/quote]
I’m not asking for agreement, I’m asking for critical thinking. If one would rather take a shit, then why would they be posting?[quote]
Some people like thinking, some people don’t…give it up. No one is forcing you to be here, and no one needs your approval for anything.[/quote]
And your point? You aren’t saying anything with that last point.
Have I touched a nerve? If you don’t care as much as you claim, then why did you post?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
So it’s only a good discussion if you say it is?
[/quote]Nope, a good discussion would include relevant posts, on topic with more maturity than a twelve year old.[quote]
Since when does someone with as few posts/constructive contributions as you do get appointed to such a lofty position?
[/quote]You’re repeating yourself.[quote]
How about you get off your ass, hit the weights, eat right, and quit trying to make everything a brain exercise.
[/quote]You have no idea of what I do or don’t do, this has zero credibility.[quote]
Sometimes it really is just that simple, and folks like you think it needs to be talked about.
[/quote]If a forum isn’t for talking about it, then what is a forum for?[quote]
Moron. [/quote]
Classy.
[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
Moron.
Classy.
[/quote]
It wasn’t an insult - it was a statement of fact.
I have seen your kind come and go. They all go.
You don’t lift - at least not successfully enough to be an arbitor for a discussion about training. Yet that doesn’t seem to register in your head.
It diminishes any creditbility you might have on the subject.
So - based on the fact that you have demonstrated zero experience on the subject - why should you be given any respect?
This is a think tank, but it also a forum (just like you alluded to). You have to bring something to the table besides your whiny-bitch attitude - preferably some semblance of training results. Especially when you attempt to discuss a topic such as training.
Just a small hint: If you would get off your ass and actually do it, instead of sitting on your ass an talking about it - you would probably find that it is not nearly as deep a subject as you want it to be.
In other words: Shut the fuck up and lift.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
Moron.
Classy.
It wasn’t an insult - it was a statement of fact.
I have seen your kind come and go. They all go.
You don’t lift - at least not successfully enough to be an arbitor for a discussion about training. Yet that doesn’t seem to register in your head.
It diminishes any creditbility you might have on the subject.
So - based on the fact that you have demonstrated zero experience on the subject - why should you be given any respect?
This is a think tank, but it also a forum (just like you alluded to). You have to bring something to the table besides your whiny-bitch attitude - preferably some semblance of training results. Especially when you attempt to discuss a topic such as training.
Just a small hint: If you would get off your ass and actually do it, instead of sitting on your ass an talking about it - you would probably find that it is not nearly as deep a subject as you want it to be.
In other words: Shut the fuck up and lift. [/quote]
This post only shows ignorance and lack of maturity. There is no point in addressing anything in particlular that you said.
I think what happens here is that you get three or four big, experience guys debating subjects like the best methods to get big and stronge and an apparent “new guy” steps in and seems to have the opposite viewpoint.
The next step by some is to click on the new guy’s name to see what his stats are (as a way of measuring his level of experience). What the vets here usually find is that the new guy weighs 50-100 lbs less than the average of the current debaters. That coupled with his 12 posts since he joined seven minutes ago makes him a candidate for the launching pad as he is quickly regarded at a nippy little lap dog whining at the feet of the larger breeds.
There has been and always will be that kind of hierarchy. It’s like any activity/sport/hobby. Unless you are seen as a guy that can’has walked the walk, then please don’t bother talking the talk.
I don’t know if there is a way to keep the BSers out. Pics help, pics and posting history help but if the new guy comes in spouting contrary advice to the vets, he’s gonna get jumped on pretty quickly. Sometimes it’s warrated, sometimes not. That’s a public forum for ya!
[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
This post only shows ignorance and lack of maturity. There is no point in addressing anything in particlular that you said.[/quote]
My posts show more of a mastery of the training ethic than anyuthing you have posted since you have joined.
I would like to know what is immature about calling you out for being a lazy, skinny-fat, non-training ass. I am merely using your own words, and showong your hypocrisy in this thread.
Just because you say it does not make it a fact.
But it’s no big thing - you will be gone very soon, just like all the rest of the non-training know-it-alls.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
This post only shows ignorance and lack of maturity. There is no point in addressing anything in particlular that you said.
My posts show more of a mastery of the training ethic than anyuthing you have posted since you have joined.
I would like to know what is immature about calling you out for being a lazy, skinny-fat, non-training ass. I am merely using your own words, and showong your hypocrisy in this thread.
Just because you say it does not make it a fact.
But it’s no big thing - you will be gone very soon, just like all the rest of the non-training know-it-alls. [/quote]
Personal attacks, ie. name calling, etc. are immature. They come from someone either unable or unwilling to rise above the level of maturity fitting a six year old. Often it is due to an emotional response to not being able to understand someone.
[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
Nope, a good discussion would include relevant posts, on topic with more maturity than a twelve year old.
[/quote]
I often have the sense of humor of a 12 year-old and some of the best threads are those that have strayed off topic. For me, that’s part of the allure to this website. Any given thread has the potential to be either hilarious or informative, or sometimes both. But the reality is a large percentage of the threads on this website are worthless ramblings. Live with it and quit trying to be so profound.
Derek, I’ve found a lot of your posts insightful, this is no exception.
[quote]derek wrote:
I think what happens here is that you get three or four big, experience guys debating subjects like the best methods to get big and stronge and an apparent “new guy” steps in and seems to have the opposite viewpoint.
[/quote]I like this, because it is true, as well as you expressed that the new guy seems to have an opposite view point.
In the bulk thread I was seen just as you mentioned, a skinny new guy, the result was that very few read enough of my posts to know that I agreed with the big guys on every point except that I also believe it a useful tool to track BF while bulking. That one point alone is not enough for a violent opposition when the level of agreement was so high.[quote]
The next step by some is to click on the new guy’s name to see what his stats are (as a way of measuring his level of experience). What the vets here usually find is that the new guy weighs 50-100 lbs less than the average of the current debaters. That coupled with his 12 posts since he joined seven minutes ago makes him a candidate for the launching pad as he is quickly regarded at a nippy little lap dog whining at the feet of the larger breeds.
[/quote]Probably not a bad prejudice most of the time. How often does it hold? Most all of the time. There are exceptions though and with the level of irrational response that happen, some experienced, has beens like myself get lost in the shuffle. Who cares, right? It isn’t important if I ever post again, the sun will not explode, but if we evaluated a post on it’s own merits, the possablilites are endless.[quote]
There has been and always will be that kind of hierarchy. It’s like any activity/sport/hobby. Unless you are seen as a guy that can’has walked the walk, then please don’t bother talking the talk.
[/quote]True, but it is a public forum, free for all, like it or not. If we evaluate a post on it’s own merits, this won’t be an issue though.[quote]
I don’t know if there is a way to keep the BSers out. Pics help, pics and posting history help but if the new guy comes in spouting contrary advice to the vets, he’s gonna get jumped on pretty quickly.
[/quote]The obstacle in that is many jump on him without actually reading his posts. In the last thread I was jumped on without actually giving advice once. In fact I agreed with the veterans. Very few read enough to know that and the ones that did PM’d me rather than participate in the gong show.[quote]
Sometimes it’s warrated, sometimes not. That’s a public forum for ya![/quote]
You got that right!
[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
Wow! Was I ever wrong!
[/quote]
The forum was doing fine before you arrived. Please leave.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
I often have the sense of humor of a 12 year-old and some of the best threads are those that have strayed off topic. For me, that’s part of the allure to this website. Any given thread has the potential to be either hilarious or informative, or sometimes both. But the reality is a large percentage of the threads on this website are worthless ramblings. Live with it and quit trying to be so profound.[/quote]
I hear you malonetd, I’m only addressing the clear shit show responses that come so easily, they don’t add, they detract from the quality of the forums.
As for the profound thing, I’m not trying anything of the sort, I’m only expressing a view is all.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
A few posters responded that anyone who was smaller than they had no business posting.
That wasn’t what was written to you at all. Specifically, the weight range “below 160lbs” was thrown out, but it was in clear relation to people WHO HAVE LITTLE TO NO MUSCULAR DEVELOPMENT yet feel the need to share all of their knowledge. Obviously some shorter competitor who was very muscular yet competes in the 160lbs class wouldn’t fit into that category. Did that really need to be spelled out for you?
Isn’t Stan more developed than Thibs by the way? Food for thought. Second, we cannot verify anyone’s claims. Period. Everyone is 7’8" weighing 440 pounds ripped. I think having the ability to post stats in our profiles is more problem than solution.
Many of us have posted our pics on this forum. I don’t believe many stats from anyone unless they have posted some sort of picture with it and their advice matches their professed training age.
All that we really have is reasoning a priori.
False. read above. You’re the new guy. You haven’t posted your pic here and not too many people have even debated with you. Whoever wrote to you that this was not the place for intelligent debate comes across as one of those embittered skinny guys who is mad because people aren’t taking biceps training advice from someone with 12" arms.
What would happen if we all simply read a post and evaluated the message? We’d spend a lot more time learning, that is what. Some ideas would suck, some would be great, most would be in between, but we’d all get ahead faster with cooperation, that is for shit sure.
And, without any attempt to separate the pure talkers from the doers, there would be pages and pages of useless mental masturbation from even the tiniest and least developed people with internet access.
[/quote]
Pro X,
Since when does somebodies upper arm measurement have to do with knowledge?
I know many very smart strength coaches that are not to muscular.
Being a doctor and not knowing the huge role in genetics being the number 1 reason for great muscular growth is amazing. You have very good genetics and respond well, but you think everybody should respond like you or they are not training properly.
One’s knowledge of training has little to do with how big they are.
[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
Baaaad idea! I was mistakenly thinking that a public forum would be used by people who enjoy debating points as an exercise to further each person’s understanding of their beliefs. Talk about naive! [/quote]
Let’s look at a couple of things you wrote in another thread:
It’s a good thing that scientists don’t use your “method” of thinking. “Who cares if this treatment correlates with a high degree of recovery? Fuck real-world success. We need Roland Fisher to tell us what will REALLY works.”
I hate to break it to you, but most people approaching a problem reason thusly: x-approach is positively correlated with a high degree of success in treating y-problem. Thefore, x-approach is superior when addressing y-problem.
If you’re such a critical thinker, how can you not be familiar with empiricism? Ultimately, most of the guys here are empiricists: They look at what has actually worked.
If you don’t know how big guys get big, then why do you feel qualified to discuss the subject?
I don’t discuss modern cures for cancer. Why not? Because I don’t know what treatments work for cancer. I’m unqualified.
You admitted that you don’t know WHAT WORKS. Yet you are trying to give you opinion in a discussion of what works.
Yet you wonder why people reject you and your “ideas.”
[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
malonetd wrote:
I often have the sense of humor of a 12 year-old and some of the best threads are those that have strayed off topic. For me, that’s part of the allure to this website. Any given thread has the potential to be either hilarious or informative, or sometimes both. But the reality is a large percentage of the threads on this website are worthless ramblings. Live with it and quit trying to be so profound.
I hear you malonetd, I’m only addressing the clear shit show responses that come so easily, they don’t add, they detract from the quality of the forums.
As for the profound thing, I’m not trying anything of the sort, I’m only expressing a view is all.[/quote]
But you have to understand, rainjack has earned the right call you names and disregard you. You’re nobody around here. Someone like rainjack has posted pics, made gains, been around here for quite some time, and has added plenty of information to this site. (He also doesn’t need me standing up for him, but I’m trying to make a point.)
To rainjack and others, this is “their” website. They’re the veterans. You’re the rookie and will be treated as such. You have no credibility here. Now that can change. I’ve been around long enough to see plenty newbies get their asses handed to them and watch them stick with it and become contributing members.
Suck it up, rookie bitch.
[quote]Chris Arp wrote:
Pro X,
Since when does somebodies upper arm measurement have to do with knowledge?
I know many very smart strength coaches that are not to muscular.
Being a doctor and not knowing the huge role in genetics being the number 1 reason for great muscular growth is amazing. You have very good genetics and respond well, but you think everybody should respond like you or they are not training properly.
One’s knowledge of training has little to do with how big they are.
[/quote]
You did a great job here of showing how little you actually grasp. This is a BODYBUILDING FORUM. No one has written that someone who is simply a little smaller is clueless. I am just as likely to listen to every word that “Gottatrain” has to say (if you don’t know who that is: http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1328688 )
…as I am someone much larger. Why, you ask? Because he clearly has put the time in despite being much smaller than I am or have been since possibly my first year of training.
You, on the other hand, didn’t either understand this or know this…despite my support of the lifter mentioned just now very often on this site.
That shows you not only don’t listen, but you jump to conclusions. Jumping to conclusions is a bad thing if it is always the wrong conclusion.
Someone with 12" arms who has never lifted a weight has nothing to teach me. Even as a strength coach, I would expect the person to have a solid personal background in weight lifting themselves whether they have actually become very large or not.
Your quip as if I don’t understand genetics is purely ridiculous. I know very well that I am not average and have stated as such several times. Average people don’t get their arms over 18" within the first 3 years of solid training regardless of how “smooth” I was the first time I got them to that point. I am not in the dark about that at all. I also know that I managed to make a great deal of progress because I WORKED MY ASS OFF FOR IT for several years and that genetics didn’t drive me to the gym six days a week on average for nearly 12 years, they didn’t cook my meals for me every night while in school and spending most nights studying with very little personal time, and genetics didn’t make personal sacrifices to make sure I reached the goal I was after.
Perhaps you believe genetics did all of this for me…silly rabbit.
I also know that when it comes to my own goals, listening to the guys with the least genetic potential will not equate to me reaching the peak of my own.
Perhaps you should reread this one so you don’t miss anything.
Is there anything else you are confused about…besides the obvious?
[quote]malonetd wrote:
To rainjack and others, this is “their” website. They’re the veterans. You’re the rookie and will be treated as such. You have no credibility here. Now that can change. I’ve been around long enough to see plenty newbies get their asses handed to them and watch them stick with it and become contributing members.
Suck it up, rookie bitch.[/quote]
BINGO!!
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
malonetd wrote:
I often have the sense of humor of a 12 year-old and some of the best threads are those that have strayed off topic. For me, that’s part of the allure to this website. Any given thread has the potential to be either hilarious or informative, or sometimes both. But the reality is a large percentage of the threads on this website are worthless ramblings. Live with it and quit trying to be so profound.
I hear you malonetd, I’m only addressing the clear shit show responses that come so easily, they don’t add, they detract from the quality of the forums.
As for the profound thing, I’m not trying anything of the sort, I’m only expressing a view is all.
But you have to understand, rainjack has earned the right call you names and disregard you. You’re nobody around here. Someone like rainjack has posted pics, made gains, been around here for quite some time, and has added plenty of information to this site. (He also doesn’t need me standing up for him, but I’m trying to make a point.)
To rainjack and others, this is “their” website. They’re the veterans. You’re the rookie and will be treated as such. You have no credibility here. Now that can change. I’ve been around long enough to see plenty newbies get their asses handed to them and watch them stick with it and become contributing members.
Suck it up, rookie bitch.[/quote]
I respect what you’re saying, but I don’t care who was here first, it is not rainjack’s, or yours, or anyones site, it is BioTests site and they let me in, so as much as my points bother anyone, tuff.
[quote]Chris Arp wrote:
Pro X,
Since when does somebodies upper arm measurement have to do with knowledge?
I know many very smart strength coaches that are not to muscular.
Being a doctor and not knowing the huge role in genetics being the number 1 reason for great muscular growth is amazing. You have very good genetics and respond well, but you think everybody should respond like you or they are not training properly.
One’s knowledge of training has little to do with how big they are.
[/quote]
Chris, thanks for what seems like support, but you just put a lot of words in the Prof’s mouth, that is exactly what people were doing to me in the other thread that got me to write this one.
Evaluate the post, not what you assume the post means.
A coach should at least look the part. Sort of like nutritionists should not be fat, maybe thats not PC, I dunno ?!
Its like going to an office job in a suit, its an expectation or it infers you might be ok. The person who does not look that part is off to a bad start.